"Surveillance Even in the Bathroom?" The Pros and Cons of AI-Driven "New School Security" in U.S. High Schools

"There's a device on the bathroom wall that looks like a smoke detector. Apparently, it listens to 'sounds.'" As soon as such a story emerges, people's imaginations run wild. Schools are not only places for children but also "microcosms of society" where local anxieties and political and industrial interests are deeply embedded.

In December 2025, reports about "multi-layered surveillance" spreading in U.S. high schools, including drones, behavior analysis AI cameras, vehicle license plate reading (ALPR), and audio detection devices around bathrooms, drew attention. At Beverly Hills High School near Los Angeles, it is reported that behavior analysis AI monitors the hallways, visiting vehicles are tracked by license plate reading, and AI audio detection devices are installed in bathrooms.

Furthermore, the school district reportedly spent about $4.8 million on security-related expenses just for the 2024-25 academic year. The district superintendent, Alex Cherniss, stated that "armed security, drones, and AI will be introduced if necessary," positioning the surveillance system as a "daily operation."

However, there is insufficient data to prove that enhanced surveillance increases "safety." A representative from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warns that the normalization of surveillance could silence children, reduce consultations and reports to teachers, and "actually become more dangerous."

1) Why Schools Are Becoming Fortresses: The "Bathroom Problem" Beyond Just "Guns"

Discussions about school safety in the U.S. are difficult to separate from the reality of gun violence. This is why companies promoting surveillance technology use words like "deterrence," "early detection," and "rapid response" as their arsenal. However, the "safety issues" schools face are not limited to guns. In recent years, the introduction of bathroom surveillance devices has been justified by the disruption of "everyday order," such as vaping, THC use, bullying, violence, vandalism, and loitering in bathrooms.

A study introduced by WIRED reported that the HALO sensors installed in Minneapolis public schools issued over 45,000 alerts in seven months (from September 2024 to April 2025), averaging about 412 notifications per day—almost "once a minute."
While these notifications often lead to disciplinary actions like suspensions, there is a noticeable "bias in operation" with fewer support measures such as counselor referrals.

The key point is that even if these devices start with "air quality detection," their scope can quietly expand to include models equipped with microphones and the detection of "aggression" and "keywords."

2) Who Gets Hurt When "AI Makes Mistakes" in the Field?

When considering the pros and cons of AI surveillance, false detection is the most intuitively compelling issue. In Baltimore County public schools, it was reported that the surveillance company Omnilert monitors about 7,000 school cameras, but the system mistakenly identified a student's Doritos bag as a handgun, leading to armed police being dispatched and the student being detained before the error was discovered.

Similarly, in Florida, there was an incident where AI mistook a student's clarinet for a gun, causing the school to go into lockdown.

False detections do not end as "funny stories." School safety measures are often connected to security personnel and police. This means that AI errors are translated into "actions by armed adults," directly affecting children's bodies and minds. Furthermore, if false detections are repeated, the response to "real dangers" may dull, turning the situation into a "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

Additionally, in the AI security market, the promotion that "AI improves accuracy" tends to precede reality. For example, in 2024, the U.S. FTC took action against Evolv, which claims to detect weapons, for making unfounded or misleading claims about AI's detection capabilities, including measures that gave school clients the option to terminate contracts. Federal Trade Commission

3) The Moment Surveillance "Reduces Safety": The Destruction of Trust and "Decrease in Consultations"

The ACLU side pours cold water on the narrative that strengthening school surveillance "protects children's safety." ACLU representatives cited in reports referred to findings that many large-scale school shootings since Columbine have occurred in schools already under heavy surveillance and noted that focus groups indicated a tendency for students to find it harder to confide in teachers about mental health issues or domestic violence in schools where surveillance is normalized.

The "last bastion" of school safety is not equipment but "relationships where someone can be consulted." If the detection of signs and preemptive care are distanced by the normalization of surveillance, technology could undermine the foundation of safety.

4) "Not Recording" Is Not Enough: The Fundamental Risks of Bathroom Surveillance Devices

The selling points of surveillance devices often include "not recording" and "not storing." However, the presence of network-connected microphones does not eliminate risks. WIRED reported on the potential exploitation of vulnerabilities in HALO 3C (eavesdropping, false alerts, etc.) and the manufacturer's provision of updates.

Concerns can mainly be categorized into three areas.

• Security: Vulnerabilities or configuration errors could allow third parties to eavesdrop or tamper.

• Misuse of Purpose: The initial "vape countermeasure" could expand to behavior management or staff surveillance.

• Data Integration: A structure could emerge where vendors or external agencies effectively have access.

The fear of surveillance is that the more it starts with good intentions, the harder it is to stop. The noble cause of "protecting children" can easily crush individual concerns.

5) Reactions Exploding on Social Media (Comment Sections): Where Did Opinions Diverge?

As this topic spread, social media and comment sections were divided into three main points of contention.

(A) Dystopian Criticism: "Destroying the Last Sanctuary"

The sentiment that the school surveillance network is reminiscent of "Minority Report" symbolizes the strong rejection of the invasive feeling of "even the 'sounds' in the bathroom."

(B) Cost Criticism: "Use That Money for Education and Support"

On Slashdot, comments like "Could those millions of dollars have been used for education?" were prominent. The intuition is that even if surveillance increases, the "core of the school" such as literacy, mental care, and classroom management does not get stronger.

(C) The Urgency of the Field: "Reluctantly, Something Must Be Done"

Conversely, the discussion on Slashdot also included views that "while surveillance is undesirable, schools are cornered by the reality of local crime and guns," and that there is a certain rationality depending on the "design (transparency, activation conditions, voluntariness)" of the surveillance program.

Another perspective that spread on social media was the notion of surveillance "for insurance and litigation." On LinkedIn, the argument was made that surveillance is being "standardized" not so much to prevent incidents but to leave evidence that the school did its best, thereby reducing liability and accountability risks, which garnered both empathy and backlash.

6) Points from a Japanese Perspective: "Lines" to Decide Before Implementation

The surveillance in U.S. schools is largely rooted in the unique circumstances of gun violence. However, in Japan, the boundary between "monitoring" and "surveillance" can also easily blur. Therefore, more than the pros and cons of implementation, there are "lines" that should be decided beforehand if implementation is to occur.

• Limitation of Purpose (What to detect and what not to detect)

• Positioning of Human Judgment (AI as primary information, documentation of conditions for police collaboration)

• Transparency (Disclosure of installation locations, detection items, storage periods, access rights)

• Verification (Audit of false detection rates, deterrent effects, increases in suspensions, decreases in consultations, and educational impacts)

• Alternative Investment (Comparison of how much support systems can be strengthened with the same amount)

Schools are places where "anything goes for safety" can easily become the norm. However, children should learn not "obedience under surveillance" but autonomy within trust. The small device attached to the bathroom wall serves as a large mirror questioning that obvious notion.